Should cyclists stump up for a ‘seat at the table’ tax?

"Motoring taxes are not ring-fenced for spending on roads, they go into general Treasury coffers, the ‘Consolidated Fund’, and have done so since 1937. Ring-fencing of taxes is generally considered a bad idea. For instance, if motoring taxes had to be spent on improving conditions for Britain’s motorists, it would be just as logical for cigarette taxes to improve the comfort and convenience of Britain’s smokers. "

http://ipayroadtax.com/pay-to-play-tax/cyclists-should-stump-up-for-a-pay-to-play-tax/

"If cyclists – or their bicycles – are to be taxed, it would be only fair to have a scale of charges. Payment ought to be by size, vehicle axle loads, mileage driven and carbon dioxide emissions. So, HGVs would pay through the nose for the damage; cars would be stiffed because of the high mileage and emissions; and bicycles, which cause next to no road damage, would pay the least because they are the transport equivalent of Brazil’s pygmy geckos, lizards so light they can stand on water. "

"The standard figure is that damage to roads is proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight. So a rough figure suggests that a car, which weighs about ten times as much as a cyclist (say 1000kg versus 100kg) should pay 10x10x10x10, or 10,000 times as much in ‘road tax’. So if a car pays £100 a year, the cyclist pays 1p. I’d happily pay my next 50 years’ ‘road tax’ now if it would shut up those certain motorists."